4 comments:

O.k., Jim and Kevin, if your logical ability hasn't been overwhelmed by the exciting "facts" you've been getting from "unimpeachable and unbiased sources" and your current "revelation" that all the hundreds, and even thousands, of Jewish survivors who experienced the German concentration camps personally have, since the end of the war, been lying about their experiences "because it's in the nature of the beast to lie", then consider this...

A man named Jerry kidnaps a man named Herschel and his family (with all the legal ramifications of the term kidnap), and locks them up in a stockade (something regarded universally by all nations' laws as false imprisonment). One of Jerry's best friends, Yoshi, sneaks up on Tommy's friend Jack and takes revenge on him for a series of past vendettas. So Jack declares war on Yoshi. Jerry then responds by declaring war on Jack. Jack and Tommy then have their air forces bomb Jerry's home turf, and in the process destroy all the roads that Jerry uses to bring food to the stockade where he's keeping Herschel and his family. Jerry decides to use what little food he's squirreled away to feed himself, and lets Herschel and his family starve to death in the stockade. Jerry didn't starve Herschel and his family by using the food for himself and not giving any of it to them--because it was Jack and Tommy's fault that there wasn't enough food to go around, or so he claims.

Now, when the war is over, you're a judge presiding over a hearing to decide whether Jerry is guilty for the death of Herschel and his family. Or maybe the guilt was Jack and Tommy's? Would you find Jerry innocent? Please apply your usual "objective" logic.

I can't help it. The illogic and hypocrisy are so thick you could cut them with a knife. The State of Israel could hypothetically kill 36 million Muslims if they bomb Iran, which could let them go on to establish Zionist hegemony over the Middle East? This would multiply the State of Israel's genocide of Muslims by a thousand fold, by a conservative estimate. And it would potentially expand Israeli territory by how much should we guess?: a hundred fold of any expansion in it's history? Israel would then be in a position to control Middle East oil supplies and hold Europe, the U.S., and the rest of the world hostage, considering that all the 1.5 million Israelis available for military service would suffice for such an occupation.

On the other hand, the United States and its NATO partners are responsible for the genocide of over a million Muslims in Iraq alone. Add to this a million, and perhaps many more, Muslims in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and other countries of Africa and Asia. These are actual, not hypothetical, casualties of U.S. and NATO imperialism. In all of these, the Israeli military was only peripherally involved: some joint ventures by the Mossad, a few military "advisors", and a few occupation troops in Afghanistan and perhaps Sudan.

Yes, the partnership that the U.S. élite has with the second-wave Zionist leadership of the State of Israel is a crucial component of Western dominance in the Middle East and Africa, and that's why each and every U.S. Congressional Representative and Senator must genuflect before AIPAC if they wish to be elected, and continue to shill for Tel Aviv (whose global politics mirrors Washington's) if they want to keep their seats. That's a far cry from the Congress and Senate supporting Israeli dominance over the entire Middle East and giving Israel control of the world's oil supply! Especially given that many, if not most, of the boardrooms of the major oil companies are filled with antisemites.

It's like Hitler saying that "the Jews" were responsible for what the Britain, France, and the U.S. victors did to Germany following the Armistice, instead of pointing the blame to where it belonged. Watch the planes, and you'll know why the Towers fell! Not.